9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (5) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for importation of these goods was produced. Since in respect of both the baggage declaration forms the appellant had declared the contents as personal clothes, foodstuffs and books, there appeared to be a prima facie case of misdeclaration rendering the goods liable to confiscation 111(d) read with Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. A show cause notice dated 10-11-1978 was issued to him. In his written explanation dated 30-11-1978 the appellant stated that he brought with him only one tape recorder with several accessories absolutely for his personal use and not for resale. He further stated that he was not aware that these items could not be brought as personal baggage or required an import licence. He requested that the items may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -revision, despite a dispute having been set up by the appellant. 1.4 In the meanwhile, the appellant was able to obtain an import licence for the said goods. Despite issue of the import licence of the said goods, the Asstt. Collector in view of the order-in-revision did not agree to release the goods against the licence and insisted on re-export of the goods and reimportation of the goods against the import licence. Accordingly, eleven items were re-exported in December, 1981 and again reimported during March 1982 vide bill of entry cash No. 1008 dated 2-5-1982. 1.5 On assessing the same goods on re-importation, the Asstt. Collector without giving any reason and without issuing any speaking order ignored the now available evidence of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods in November 1978. The date of valuation of the goods was never challenged by the department. The appellant alone, however, had been challenging the arbitrary method of valuing the goods in the face of the evidence of invoices produced by him and genuineness of which had never been challenged at any stage by the said authorities. The learned consultant, therefore, submits that on the authority of Bombay High Court s judgment in the case of Santosh Gupta v. UOI - 1990 (48) E.L.T. 210 the invoices produced by the appellant ought to have been accepted in the absence of any other evidence for the price adopted by the Customs authorities. He has submitted that the departmental officers have not produced any evidence whatsoever in suppor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said authority has rejected the appeal of the appellant. We also agree with the learned consultant that the department has not produced any evidence whatsoever for fixing the valuation of the goods at over Rs. 70,000/-. Genuineness of the invoices produced by the appellant had not been challenged by the department in any manner whatsoever. In the circumstances, we agree with the learned consultant that the valuation of the goods has to be made on the basis of the invoices produced by the appellant. Since the appellant himself has taken the view that these invoices have to be treated as FOB value in the absence of any indication in the invoices, the valuation may be done by treating the invoice value as FOB value to arrive at the CIF value f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
